DOCSLIB.ORG

Russia 2012-2013: Attack on Freedom / 3 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

RUSSIA 2012-2013 : Attack on Freedom Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, February 2014 / N°625a Cover photo: Demonstration in front of the State Duma (Russian Parliament) in Moscow on 18 July 2013, after the conviction of Alexei Navalny. © AFP PHOTO / Ivan Novikov 2 / Titre du rapport – FIDH Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1. Authoritarian Methods to Suppress Rights and Freedoms -------------------------------- 6 2. Repressive Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 2.1. Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly ---------------------------------------------------- 8 2.2. Restrictions on Freedom of Information ------------------------------------------------ 9 2.3. Restrictions on the Activities of Non-Commercial Organisations (NGOs) ----- 12 3. Repression in Practice --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 3.1. Persecution of NGOs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Strict Monitoring of NGO Activities ------------------------------------------------------------ 15 Demonstration of Force by Supervisory Bodies ----------------------------------------------- 15 Arbitrary Treatment in Practice ------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 The Courts and Sanctions against NGOs -------------------------------------------------------- 18 Court Proceedings against NGOs----------------------------------------------------------------- 18 The Obligation to Register ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21 Warnings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Other Sanctions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Regions where Repressions are the most Severe ----------------------------------------------- 22 Forced Reductions in International funding ---------------------------------------------------- 23 Ambiguity of Terminology in the Law on Foreign Agents ----------------------------------- 23 3.2. The Suppression of Voices of Protest --------------------------------------------------- 24 Silencing Political Protest ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 Silencing Protests in Nizhny Novgorod --------------------------------------------------------- 25 Silencing Criticism --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 Threats and Violence against Defenders of LGBT Rights ------------------------------------ 27 Prosecution of Environmentalists and Human Rights Defenders ---------------------------- 29 Violence and Threats against Activists----------------------------------------------------------- 30 The Judiciary’s Role in the Service of Political Persecution --------------------------------- 31 Prosecutions Related to Participation in Demonstrations ------------------------------------- 32 Prosecutions Connected to Anti-Extremism Laws --------------------------------------------- 33 Prosecution under Various Articles for Political Purposes ------------------------------------ 34 The Bolotnaya Case -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 Conclusions and recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------- 39 FIDH-ADC Memorial – Russia 2012-2013: Attack on Freedom / 3 Introduction The stunning scale of popular protest that swept through Russia in 2011 – 20121 was followed by an equally shocking range of political repressions unseen since the late 1980s. President Putin made a clear decision that the political climate in Russia would be divided into two periods: “before” and “after” the parliamentary elections (December 2011) and the presidential election (March 2012). Immediately following the disputed election that returned him to the highest position in the country after four years as prime minister, Putin made it abundantly clear that he had full control of the situation. This is evidenced by the politically- motivated trials involving Pussy Riot, Navalny, Greenpeace activists, and the events on Bolotnaya Square (all covered widely in the press), and the politically-motivated prosecution of anti-fascists (which was not covered as widely); the sudden and rapid advancement of laws flouting the main principles of democracy2; the appearance of propaganda, frequently quite aggressive, directed against the opposition and independent associations; and the open or tacit persecution of civil activists, members of the political opposition, and human rights defenders. Every day brings new developments, monitoring measures, checks, arrests, and violence. In its reactions to the emerging protest movement, which is based on moral and legal criticism, the government has shown that it is prepared to use all the means it has at its disposal to prevent similar eruptions of social activism in the future. The high-profile trial of the feminist protest group Pussy Riot for the “punk prayer service” calling for Putin’s resignation held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on 21 February 2012 became a symbol of the repressions unleashed against all protest groups engaged in political, social, or simply civic protest. Opposition leaders and even regular citizens who dared to display their dissatisfaction with the current government were subjected to threats and attacks. For example, the Bolotnaya Square case, which involved some 30 people who participated in a demonstration against Putin’s reelection that was held on 6 May 2012, is a prime example of a politically-motivated trial meant as a show of the state’s political will to hand out strict punishments to protestors with the help of exposure in media outlets loyal to Putin. The amnesty announced in December 2013 for several activists and members of the opposition (Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot, 30 Greenpeace activists from the ship Arctic Sunrise, and eight people convicted in the Bolotnaya Square case, only three of whom were actually in prison) as well as the presidential pardon of the oligarch and opposition member Mikhail Khodorkovsky should not in any way be taken as a sign of change for the better. On the contrary, these actions only serve to intensify the feeling of arbitrary decision making, even in criminal prosecutions. This gesture of amnesty, which came two months prior to the start of the Olympics in Sochi, at a time when the world was raising its voice against the gross human rights violations committed by the Russian government, is clearly meant to show good will, but in essence does not change anything in the course of systematic repression directed against both opposition activists and regular people, critical or independent thinkers. 1. Human Rights in Russia: Recurrent Violations and New Concerns, FIDH, March 2012: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/ pdf/russia-march2012.pdf 2. The Human Rights Situation in Russia: Repressive Legislation and Practices to Silence Civil Society, February 2013: 2013: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/126436373-briefer-russie-updated.pdf 4 / FIDH-ADC Memorial – Russia 2012-2013: Attack on Freedom Government critics have long been the subject of persecution and intimidation from security forces, particularly Center E (a police department to prevent extremism), which operates as the new political police. Since 2012, their methods have affected an every critical growing circle of people, including artists, journalists, activists, human rights defenders, and independent NGOs. The situation for non-commercial non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is cause for extreme concern. Since 2006, NGOs have been subjected to strict administrative restrictions and many of them have been accused of “performing the functions of foreign agents” since the law on foreign agents took effect in November 2012. Under this law, NGOs receiving foreign financing and engaged in the nebulous concept of “political activity” must register as foreign agents in the appropriate registry maintained by the Ministry of Justice. This shameful label hearkens back to the country’s Soviet past and stigmatizes human rights defenders, in a violation of the Constitution and the Russian Federation’s international obligations. FIDH representatives travelled to Russia several times during 2013, and were there at the time when the Public Prosecutor’s Office was conducting an unprecedented wave of checks of NGOs that occurred in parallel with the intensifying persecution
Recommended publications
  • James Rowson Phd Thesis Politics and Putinism a Critical Examination

    James Rowson Phd Thesis Politics and Putinism a Critical Examination

    Politics and Putinism: A Critical Examination of New Russian Drama James Rowson A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Royal Holloway, University of London Department of Drama, Theatre & Dance September 2017 1 Declaration of Authorship I James Rowson hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: ______________________ Date: ________________________ 2 Abstract This thesis will contextualise and critically explore how New Drama (Novaya Drama) has been shaped by and adapted to the political, social, and cultural landscape under Putinism (from 2000). It draws on close analysis of a variety of plays written by a burgeoning collection of playwrights from across Russia, examining how this provocative and political artistic movement has emerged as one of the most vehement critics of the Putin regime. This study argues that the manifold New Drama repertoire addresses key facets of Putinism by performing suppressed and marginalised voices in public arenas. It contends that New Drama has challenged the established, normative discourses of Putinism presented in the Russian media and by Putin himself, and demonstrates how these productions have situated themselves in the context of the nascent opposition movement in Russia. By doing so, this thesis will offer a fresh perspective on how New Drama’s precarious engagement with Putinism provokes political debate in contemporary Russia, and challenges audience members to consider their own role in Putin’s autocracy. The first chapter surveys the theatrical and political landscape in Russia at the turn of the millennium, focusing on the political and historical contexts of New Drama in Russian theatre and culture.
  • Young People and Human Rights in Russia: Paradoxes and Controversies

    Young People and Human Rights in Russia: Paradoxes and Controversies

    YOUNG PEOPLE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA: PARADOXES AND CONTROVERSIES Pavel Chikov A large-scale representative survey has been conducted In this essay, we would like to focus on how public by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation jointly with Russia’s opinion and state propaganda influence the youth. Last Levada Center targeting the Russian youth. A total year, our organization produced a report under the title, of 1500 young people aged from 14 to 29 years old Society vs. Authorities: the Difficulties of Voicing Public responded to a questionnaire; and a number of focus Concerns¹. In it, we talked about how society in Russia groups were organized to address its questions. When has been finding ways to make the state notice and listen asked to name a value that matters most to them, the to serious public concerns and analyzed how perceptive youth collectively answered that it was human rights. As the general public is to a formalized public opinion. Our many as 42% of the respondents selected human rights conclusion was that yes, it is very perceptive, that the as their top value, and 76% included human rights in general public can produce active or passive response the top three values of their choice. This essay seeks to [depending on circumstances], has a tendency to trust identify the reasons behind that choice. [the authorities] and does not always think critically. In this report we looked at how society has been making In general, one way to describe the assessments given progress over the past 10 years in getting human rights by the Russian youth to the country’s social and political issues on the publicly discussed agenda.
  • Helsinki Watch Committees in the Soviet Republics: Implications For

    Helsinki Watch Committees in the Soviet Republics: Implications For

    FINAL REPORT T O NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H TITLE : HELSINKI WATCH COMMITTEES IN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS : IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SOVIET NATIONALITY QUESTIO N AUTHORS : Yaroslav Bilinsky Tönu Parming CONTRACTOR : University of Delawar e PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS : Yaroslav Bilinsky, Project Director an d Co-Principal Investigato r Tönu Parming, Co-Principal Investigato r COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 621- 9 The work leading to this report was supported in whole or in part fro m funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research . NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPLY FOR COPYRIGH T This work has been requested for manuscrip t review for publication . It is not to be quote d without express written permission by the authors , who hereby reserve all the rights herein . Th e contractual exception to this is as follows : The [US] Government will have th e right to publish or release Fina l Reports, but only in same forma t in which such Final Reports ar e delivered to it by the Council . Th e Government will not have the righ t to authorize others to publish suc h Final Reports without the consent o f the authors, and the individua l researchers will have the right t o apply for and obtain copyright o n any work products which may b e derived from work funded by th e Council under this Contract . ii EXEC 1 Overall Executive Summary HELSINKI WATCH COMMITTEES IN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS : IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SOVIET NATIONALITY QUESTION by Yaroslav Bilinsky, University of Delawar e d Tönu Parming, University of Marylan August 1, 1975, after more than two years of intensive negotiations, 35 Head s of Governments--President Ford of the United States, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada , Secretary-General Brezhnev of the USSR, and the Chief Executives of 32 othe r European States--signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperatio n in Europe (CSCE) .
  • Dissidents Versus Communists

    Dissidents Versus Communists

    DISSIDENTS VERSUS COMMUNISTS An Examination of the Soviet Dissidence Movement Matthew Williams Professor Transchel History 419 May 12, 2016 Williams 1 On February 25, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech to the Twentieth Congress and to the Communist Party stating that Joseph Stalin was responsible for all of the empire’s then-current issues. He also gave insight into the criminal actions performed by the man during his lifetime. This speech was called the “Secret Speech” as it was not publicized at first, but once word got out about the true nature of Stalin, people began to doubt everything they knew to be true. Khrushchev decreased the censorship and restrictions on people and also freed millions of political prisoners from Gulags, beginning what would come to be referred to as the “thaw”. Many people had practically worshipped Stalin and knew him to represent the Communist party’s creed of infallibility. The tarnishing of his image led many people to seriously doubt the capabilities of the party.1 As truths came out and people began to discuss issues, there was increasing dissatisfaction with the Communist Party and a community of dissenters was born. This community of dissenters would ultimately keep the fight for freedom going long after the end of the thaw era, until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This paper will examine the dissent movement, from its roots in the end of the Stalin era to the collapse in 1991; it will address how the dissent movement came into being, and how it evolved as new challenges were presented to it.
  • The Usual Suspects Protesting in Russia Harriman Magazine Is Published Biannually by the Harriman Institute

    The Usual Suspects Protesting in Russia Harriman Magazine Is Published Biannually by the Harriman Institute

    the harriman institute at columbia university the usual suspects Protesting in Russia Harriman Magazine is published biannually by the Harriman Institute. Managing Editor: Ronald Meyer Editor: Masha Udensiva-Brenner Comments, suggestions, or address changes may be e-mailed to Masha Udensiva-Brenner at [email protected]. Cover photo by Artem Drachev: Demonstration in Moscow on Bolotnaya Square, May 6, 2012. Design and Production: Columbia Creative Harriman Institute Kimberly Marten, Acting Director (2012–2013) Timothy Frye, Director Alla Rachkov, Associate Director Lydia C. Hamilton, Program Manager, Alumni and Student Affairs Harriman Institute Columbia University 420 West 118 Street New York, NY 10027 Tel: 212-854-4623 Fax: 212-666-3481 For the latest news and updates about the Harriman Institute, visit www.harriman.columbia.edu. Stay connected through Facebook and Twitter! www.twitter.com/HarrimanInst www.facebook.com/pages/The-Harriman- Institute/165273220175750 FROM THE DIRECTOR elcome to the inaugural issue of the Harriman Magazine. Our hope is that the magazine will allow us to develop deeper and more sustained ties with W the alumni of the Institute—our MARS degree recipients and Harriman Certificate holders—as well as with our visiting scholars and postdoctoral fellows, as they progress in their careers. The Alumni Notes section will be a permanent feature; in the next issue we will begin publishing Postdoc Notes—so please send us your information. The heart of the magazine will feature in-depth profiles and stories about Institute alumni, visitors, faculty, and students and their projects. Our inaugural issue profiles two alums who have worn many hats at Harriman.
  • From Assistance to Engagement—A Model for a New Era in U.S

    From Assistance to Engagement—A Model for a New Era in U.S

    From Assistance to Engagement A Model for a New Era in U.S.-Russian Civil Society Relations CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Human Rights & Security Initiative 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Sarah E. Mendelson E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org September 2009 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES From Assistance to Engagement A Model for a New Era in U.S.-Russian Civil Society Relations A Report of the CSIS Human Rights & Security Initiative author Sarah E. Mendelson September 2009 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S.
  • Pussy Riot: Art Or Hooliganism? Changing Society Through Means of Participation

    Pussy Riot: Art Or Hooliganism? Changing Society Through Means of Participation

    Pussy Riot: Art or Hooliganism? Changing Society through Means of Participation Camilla Patricia Reuter Ritgerð til BA-prófs í listfræði Háskóli Íslands Hugvísindasvið Pussy Riot: Art or Hooliganism? Changing Society through Means of Participation Camilla Patricia Reuter Lokaverkefni til BA-gráðu í listfræði Leiðsögukennari: Hlynur Helgason Íslensku- og menningadeild Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands Maí 2015 Ritgerð þessi er lokaverkefni til BA- gráðu í listfræði og er óheimilt að afrita ritgerðina á nokkurn hátt nema með leyfi rétthafa. © Camilla Patricia Reuter 2015 Prentun: Bóksala Menntavísindasviðs Reykjavík, Ísland 2015 Preface In my studies of art history the connection between the past and present has always intrigued me. As a former history major, the interest in historical developments comes hardly as a surprise. This is why I felt that the subject of my essay should concentrate on a recent phenomenon in art with a rich history supporting it. My personal interest in Russian art history eventually narrowed my topics down to Pussy Riot and Voina, which both provide a provocative subject matter. Having spent a semester in St. Petersburg studying the nation’s art history one discovers a palpable connection between politics and art. From Ilya Repin’s masterpieces to the Russian avant-garde and the Moscow Conceptualists, Russian art history is provided with a multitude of oppositional art. The artistic desire to rebel lies in the heart of creativity and antagonism is necessary for the process of development. I wish to thank you my advisor and professor Hlynur Helgason for accepting to guide me in my writing process. Without the theoretical input from my advisor this bachelor’s thesis could not have been written.
  • Maria a Riposte

    Maria a Riposte

    54 Maria Alyokhina COAT STYLIST’S OWN, TIGHTS BY GIPSY TIGHTS, SHOES BY MELISSA. BY SHOES TIGHTS, GIPSY STYLIST’S BY TIGHTS OWN, COAT 56 MARIA ALYOKHINA 57 MEETINGS In 2012 Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadya Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot frst drew global attention with their now notorious Punk Prayer performance in the Moscow’s main cathedral; their ensuing incarceration and relentless battle for truth has assured their place in public consciousness. Prison, enforced separation from her child and violent censorship hasn’t quashed Maria’s anarchist spirit, it’s just made her more determined and given her an appreciation of more creative forms of protest. Words by Suze Olbrich, Photography by Francesca Allen Styled by Charlotte Roberts Maria Alyokhina’s well-documented refusal to give up, herself were seemingly essential to surviving the dark- give in, to concede even an inch to make life more est hours in a Siberian prison. bearable during two years spent in abysmal penal Within a few sentences it’s apparent Alyokhina’s conditions makes her appear superhuman. But while never let a ‘system’ pollute her thinking, even as a child her strength is formidable, on reading Riot Days, her growing up in post-Soviet Moscow. “I changed schools honest, wry and inspiring account of the Punk Prayer five times. The Russian system wants you to follow the action and its grim repercussions, it’s clear that hero- rules, but when you ask questions, they cannot explain worship does her and her cause a grave disservice. them,” she says. “Because of the tragedy of the Soviet Still, it’s an honour to meet Alyokhina, a notion only Union—when all the intellectuals were shot, or forced fortified by our coffee and cigarette-fuelled conversa- to leave—there is a lack of humanities classes so they tion.
  • En En Motion for a Resolution

    En En Motion for a Resolution

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014 Plenary sitting 11.3.2014 B7-0248/2014 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law pursuant to Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure on Russia: sentencing of demonstrators involved in Bolotnaya Square events (2014/2628(RSP)) Charles Tannock, Marek Henryk Migalski, Geoffrey Van Orden, Adam Bielan, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Tomasz Piotr Poręba, Ryszard Czarnecki on behalf of the ECR Group RE\P7_B(2014)0248EN.doc PE529648v01-00 EN United in diversityEN B7-0248/2014 European Parliament resolution on Russia: sentencing of demonstrators involved in Bolotnaya Square events (2014/2628(RSP)) The European Parliament, – having regard to the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the European Communities and their Member States, on the one part, and the Russian Federation, on the other part1, and the negotiations initiated in 2008 on a new EU- Russia agreement, – having regard to the statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton of 11 May 2012, on the arrests of opposition leaders in Moscow and of 12 June 2012 on the new law on public rallies, – having regard to statement by the Spokesperson of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the sentencing of demonstrators involved in the Bolotnaya Square events, 24 February 2014, – having regard to the EU-Russia human rights consultations, – having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2013 on the rule of law in Russia, as well as to its other reports and resolutions on EU-Russia relations, situation in Russia and last Duma and presidential elections in Russia, – having regard to Russia’s international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Final Act and membership of the OSCE, and membership of the Council of Europe and being a signatory to European Convention on Human Rights, – having regard to Rule 122 of its Rules of Procedure, A.
  • The State of Artistic Freedom 2021

    The State of Artistic Freedom 2021

    THE STATE OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM 2021 THE STATE OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM 2021 1 Freemuse (freemuse.org) is an independent international non-governmental organisation advocating for freedom of artistic expression and cultural diversity. Freemuse has United Nations Special Consultative Status to the Economic and Social Council (UN-ECOSOC) and Consultative Status with UNESCO. Freemuse operates within an international human rights and legal framework which upholds the principles of accountability, participation, equality, non-discrimination and cultural diversity. We document violations of artistic freedom and leverage evidence-based advocacy at international, regional and national levels for better protection of all people, including those at risk. We promote safe and enabling environments for artistic creativity and recognise the value that art and culture bring to society. Working with artists, art and cultural organisations, activists and partners in the global south and north, we campaign for and support individual artists with a focus on artists targeted for their gender, race or sexual orientation. We initiate, grow and support locally owned networks of artists and cultural workers so their voices can be heard and their capacity to monitor and defend artistic freedom is strengthened. ©2021 Freemuse. All rights reserved. Design and illustration: KOPA Graphic Design Studio Author: Freemuse Freemuse thanks those who spoke to us for this report, especially the artists who took risks to take part in this research. We also thank everyone who stands up for the human right to artistic freedom. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of February 2021.
  • Observation of the Presidential Election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012)

    Observation of the Presidential Election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012)

    Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 12903 23 April 2012 Observation of the presidential election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012) Election observation report Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau Rapporteur: Mr Tiny KOX, Netherlands, Group of the Unified European Left Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Political and legal context ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Election administration and voter and candidate registration .................................................................3 4. The campaign period and the media environment.................................................................................. 4 5. Complaints and appeals ......................................................................................................................... 5 6. Election day ............................................................................................................................................ 5 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1 – Composition of the ad hoc committee.................................................................................... 8 Appendix 2 – Programme of the pre-electoral mission (Moscow,
  • Andrey Tolokonnikov

    Andrey Tolokonnikov

    Andrey Tolokonnikov Kirill, the Patriarch and Putin should be on the Pussy Riot list Andrey Tolokonnikov is the father of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, one of the members of the punk outfit Pussy Riot, sentenced to two years of labour camp following their protest in the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. After the Pussy Riot trial, Andrey Tolokonnikov wrote a book about his daughter. Interview conducted in August 2013 Elena Servettaz: Sergei Magnitsky was found guilty posthumously. Such liti- gation is forbidden by law in the Russian Federation unless it is at the request of relatives (for the purposes of rehabilitation). Sergei’s relatives did not make any such request. On the contrary, Natalia Nikolaevana, Sergei’s mother, wrote to lawyers explicitly asking them not to participate in a posthumous trial of her son. How do you react to such a trial in modern Russia? Andrey Tolokonnikov: As one five-year-old girl (Andrey is speaking about Héra, the daughter of Nadezhda - editor’s note) said to me: “Medieval”. In certain courts during the inquisition, the dead person was placed in a chair for the “trial”. How strange then that they did not exhume Magnitsky and torture his remains! There is no political stability in Russia nowadays. In Russia, since time im- memorial, the war of Good vs. Evil has been waged. Magnitsky’s death speaks far more loudly than Magnitsky ever could do himself. Exposure to financial fraud has become the norm in Russia. Elena Servettaz: Recently, there have been other “show trials” in Russia. After Pussy Riot, Alexei Navalny has now also been found guilty.